Sotomayer Doesn't Understand Guns

[JimL]

I'd like to met the man who can fire 400 much less 800 rounds in a minute with an AR-15.

Not just an AR-15, an AR-15 with a Bump Stock. Ever fire one yourself?
I believe Diogenes video posted 450 rpms for an bump stock equipped AR-15.

[Diogenes]

Not just an AR-15, an AR-15 with a Bump Stock. Ever fire one yourself?
I believe Diogenes video posted 450 rpms for a bump stock equipped AR-15.

There's no 450 round magazine. In your attempt to conjure a shooting scenario, you seemed to have over looked the logistics for your hypothetical gunman. The Las Vegas shooter was a millionaire and only killed 60. Mass shootings account for a pittance of gun homicides and gun deaths and hand guns are much more common. You're focused on the "scary gun".

[JimL]

There's no 450 round magazine. In your attempt to conjure a shooting scenario, you seemed to have over looked the logistics for your hypothetical gunman. The Las Vegas shooter was a millionaire and only killed 60. Mass shootings account for a pittance of gun homicides and gun deaths and hand guns are much more common. You're focused on the "scary gun".

First off I fail to see what his being a millionaire has to do with anything.
And yes he killed 60, ("only" is not a very good way to put it) but anyways let's not forget the 500 wounded who are lucky only to have been wounded. The murder count could very well have been much higher.
And those killed by hand guns are not mass shootings or the act of crazy, mentally ill people against innocent unsuspecting people attending a concert or at the mall, the theatre, or innocent kids and teachers in school. It would be nice to know, not have to think about or worry about your wife or kids, that they can go to these places knowing that the odds of a mentally ill person with such a weapon are at least not as probable with these weapons if they are banned, which lets face it, they are not necessary for anything other than killing a lot of people.

Hand guns murders though, they are often disputes between people who know each other, or gang disputes, family disputes, and no one is suggesting banning hand guns, but regulating them, the same as all guns, in order that they be kept out of the wrong peoples hands is a good idea.
Or do you think that to be a bad idea as well?

[RumTumTugger]

The proper basis for court rulings is legislation, and legislation is enacted by your Congress/Senate.

And pro-life supporters should leave nerdy descriptions far behind and focus upon 'very fast firing guns' which could include all such weapons. Sotomayor obviously has got a better view of all this.

I don't know how it is in Britain,but here in America Judges interpret the law as written by Congress or other legislators and can only rule Constitutionally what is written not rewrite the law It is up to the framers of said law to be clear in what they want. And go bavk to the drawing board. A machine gun is defined as a gun made to shoot multiple bullets with a single pull of the trigger the amount of bullets is determined by how long you hold the trigger.The bump stock does not hold your finger on the trigger so that more bullets come out it just makes you pull the trigger multiple times to shoot bullets faster. Btw you can do the same thing a bump stock does with your belt. The law as written said the bump stock made the gun into a machine gun which was not so as I explained above which made it unconstitutional since it was wrong about what the bump stock did.

[Diogenes]

First off I fail to see what his being a millionaire has to do with anything.

A sufficient prepared wealthy person could have done much worse. Your hyperbole requires someone able to plan an attack with sufficient skill. If he wanted to, he could have used a Tommy gun.

Even the worse "mass shooting" event doesn't have a kill count higher than Chicago in a year as the over whelming majority of gun owners are mass shooters.

And yes he killed 60, ("only" is not a very good way to put it) but anyways let's not forget the 500 wounded who are lucky only to have been wounded. The murder count could very well have been much higher.

Mass shootings are indiscriminate in nature and there's a reason kill and injury counts are low. A total of 473 were injured (fatally or not) by the guns in some fashion meaning the total victim rate was 2.15% of concert goers. Mass shooting aren't statistically meaningful enough to not circumvent the legislature (ie "democracy) to address.

And those killed by hand guns are not mass shootings or the act of crazy, mentally ill people against innocent unsuspecting people attending a concert or at the mall, the theatre, or innocent kids and teachers in school. It would be nice to know, not have to think about or worry about your wife or kids, that they can go to these places knowing that the odds of a mentally ill person with such a weapon are at least not as probable with these weapons if they are banned, which lets face it, they are not necessary for anything other than killing a lot of people.

It's called self defense and AR-15 are routinely used to do so. There was a story of a 15-yo using one to save his and his younger sister from burglars. You won't even address times where more people are killed because "scary looking gun". More people are killed in Chicago than in the Las Vegas Shooting yet the Left doesn't care. Not even 1200 have been killed in mass shootings and not even 1700 have been wounded since tracking.

Hand guns murders though, they are often disputes between people who know each other, or gang disputes, family disputes, and no one is suggesting banning hand guns, but regulating them, the same as all guns, in order that they be kept out of the wrong peoples hands is a good idea.
Or do you think that to be a bad idea as well?

You're openly dismissing hand gun deaths because "scary looking gun". I have no issue with felons or those convicted of domestic violence being prevented from owning guns. Neil Steinbrenner is a good example of someone who shouldn't have a gun and he was denied one because he failed a background check. Of the AR-15 or bump stock were such a menace, there would be more deaths.


You once asked rogue of he fired a gun with bump stock, have you? Have you ever fired a gun, even once? Have you been guns at all? You don't really seem to be able to even conceptualize how guns and shooting works. In 2017, "mass shooting" deaths accounted for 1.065% of firearm murders. More people were killed with hands, fists, feet, etc than in a mass shooting. It is not justifiable to deprive rights or liberties of millions based on such a minuscule number.

[RumTumTugger]

Don't be thick!
A Bump stock produces a 'very fast firing' gun, and any machine, bump bolt, fixed pin guns are 'very fast firing,' as well.

Next time there is a school mass shoot up you can argue the nerdy details all over again.

Wrong the bump stock allows the shooter to have a very fast firing rate but that does not make it a machine gun since the shooter is pulling the trigger multiple times at a faster rate then normal; not firing multiple bullets with one trigger pull like a machine gun does. The law as written said it turned the gun into a machine gun which it does not and since the supreme court is not allowed to read into the law what they think the framer of the law meant and rewrite it they can only invalidate and tell the framer to go back and make it clear what they want to ban. As I mentioned in my previous reply This is how it works in America justices and judges cannot write or rewrite the laws they can only rule on validity of what is written.

[RumTumTugger]

There are a lot of fast shooters. This guy just pops to the top of youtube search engine for fast shooter. His claim to fame is fast AND accurate. I can shoot fast too, but I wouldn't even hit the target. And people say the same thing about bump stocks. Basically you are trying to hold your trigger finger still while the gun moves back and forth very quickly causing the trigger to be pulled. It makes it pretty hard to be accurate. Also did you see the video of that same guy trying to use a bump stock? It didn't go very well.

Thanks you answered the questions I was going to ask those of you who own and shoot guns. Have you used a bump stock? If so what did it do for your accuracy?

[Terraceth]

I don't know how it is in Britain,but here in America Judges interpret the law as written by Congress or other legislators and can only rule Constitutionally what is written not rewrite the law It is up to the framers of said law to be clear in what they want. And go bavk to the drawing board. A machine gun is defined as a gun made to shoot multiple bullets with a single pull of the trigger the amount of bullets is determined by how long you hold the trigger.The bump stock does not hold your finger on the trigger so that more bullets come out it just makes you pull the trigger multiple times to shoot bullets faster. Btw you can do the same thing a bump stock does with your belt. The law as written said the bump stock made the gun into a machine gun which was not so as I explained above which made it unconstitutional since it was wrong about what the bump stock did.

That's not what happened in the case. No law was declared unconstitutional, nor was constitutionality even an issue. And the dispute was over whether a law said a bump stock made a gun into a machine gun; no law clearly and explicitly said that, that's exactly why there was the dispute.

The situation was this. The National Firearms Act of 1934 defined machine gun thusly:

"The term "machinegun" means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person."

There had been amendments to this law subsequently, but nothing that changed the definition. Now, distribution of machineguns is largely prohibited. No one disputed that a semiautomatic rifle is not a machinegun under the above definition. The question is whether the usage of bump stocks on one turn it into a machinegun under the above definition. The ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) from I believe 2010 until 2017 asserted that semiautomatic rifles with bump stocks do not count as machineguns under that definition, then in 2017 (after a major shooting with a bump stock equipped semiautomatic rifle) changed their mind and said they do and put them under the same restrictions as machineguns. This then caused a dispute over whether that was a valid application of the law or if they were just effectively rewriting the law, which led to court cases. It eventually went to the Supreme Court who concluded that semiautomatic rifles with bump stocks do not fall into the above definition and that you can't prohibit them like you can a machinegun under the law.

The decision didn't have anything to do with whether anything was unconstitutional or not, but whether the law was being applied properly. Theoretically all that's needed to effectively undo the decision is to amend the law, though it doesn't look like congress is right now particularly interested in doing that.

[eider]

......... The Las Vegas shooter was a millionaire and only killed 60. .........

What a chump!
58-60 dead and about 500 injured in one incident, and you try to dismiss it in your muddled argument.
Whatever would a good civilian do with such a weapon, but for mass victim shooting?

[eider]

I don't know how it is in Britain,but here in America Judges interpret the law as written by Congress or other legislators and can only rule Constitutionally what is written not rewrite the law It is up to the framers of said law to be clear in what they want. And go bavk to the drawing board. A machine gun is defined as a gun made to shoot multiple bullets with a single pull of the trigger the amount of bullets is determined by how long you hold the trigger.The bump stock does not hold your finger on the trigger so that more bullets come out it just makes you pull the trigger multiple times to shoot bullets faster. Btw you can do the same thing a bump stock does with your belt. The law as written said the bump stock made the gun into a machine gun which was not so as I explained above which made it unconstitutional since it was wrong about what the bump stock did.

Your complicated thoughts are just overlooking that both kinds of gun are 'very fast firing' guns, and neither of them is of use to a decent civilian citizen.
If ever again there is a mass shooting involving over 500 victims in a single incident, you might then try to justify them.

[eider]

Thanks you answered the questions I was going to ask those of you who own and shoot guns. Have you used a bump stock? If so what did it do for your accuracy?

Don't display your ignorance.
A machine gun developed before the second world war was 'too accurate' when used in fast-fire mode because the gun couldn't adequately 'spray' the enemy. So attempts were made to make it 'spread' it's rounds.

And there's you, thinking that VFF guns should retain their accuracy.

[Diogenes]

What a chump!
58-60 dead and about 500 injured in one incident, and you try to dismiss it in your muddled argument.

Dismiss? No. Pointing out that the shooter you, Jim, and the left are almost in rapture imagining doesn't really doesn't exist and then left doesn't understand anything about guns outside of they look scary and theoretical rpms.

For instance, it's legal to own a Thompson submachine gun but there are reasons once never been used in "mass shooting". The reason "mass shooting" fatalities are less than 1,200 and injured less than 1,700 in 40 years is that is once you start shooting into a crowd is that it disperses. To legislate on the basis of statistical blimps is in the least just pandering. Even if all "mass shootings" were prevented, it would do practically nothing for gun murders or gun deaths.

Whatever would a good civilian do with such a weapon, but for mass victim shooting?

When you're being attacked by multiple people, you need to be able to put out as much rounds as possible. Those 2 extra rps are actually meaningful then.

[Cow Poke]

Don't display your ignorance.
A machine gun developed before the second world war was 'too accurate' when used in fast-fire mode because the gun couldn't adequately 'spray' the enemy.

That doesn't make any sense at all.

So attempts were made to make it 'spread' it's rounds.

And how do you propose "they" did that?

And there's you, thinking that VFF guns should retain their accuracy.

One of the valuable lessons of the machine gun in war was that it ushered in an era of far less kills per bullet. In wartime, ammo is precious, and "spraying it at the enemy" is an incredible waste of treasure. Hence, the introduction of the M16A2 and A4 and their ability to fire a 3 round burst.

[Cow Poke]

Well there rogue, that is a terrible analogy. Wounded Knee was a sad day in America's history. If I recall, Sitting Bull was killed there, but don't quote me on that.

Sitting Bull was killed by two Sioux Tribal Police Officers two weeks prior to Wounded Knee.

[JimL]

A sufficient prepared wealthy person could have done much worse. Your hyperbole requires someone able to plan an attack with sufficient skill. If he wanted to, he could have used a Tommy gun.

Even the worse "mass shooting" event doesn't have a kill count higher than Chicago in a year as the over whelming majority of gun owners are mass shooters.




Mass shootings are indiscriminate in nature and there's a reason kill and injury counts are low. A total of 473 were injured (fatally or not) by the guns in some fashion meaning the total victim rate was 2.15% of concert goers. Mass shooting aren't statistically meaningful enough to not circumvent the legislature (ie "democracy) to address.



It's called self defense and AR-15 are routinely used to do so. There was a story of a 15-yo using one to save his and his younger sister from burglars. You won't even address times where more people are killed because "scary looking gun". More people are killed in Chicago than in the Las Vegas Shooting yet the Left doesn't care. Not even 1200 have been killed in mass shootings and not even 1700 have been wounded since tracking.



You're openly dismissing hand gun deaths because "scary looking gun". I have no issue with felons or those convicted of domestic violence being prevented from owning guns. Neil Steinbrenner is a good example of someone who shouldn't have a gun and he was denied one because he failed a background check. Of the AR-15 or bump stock were such a menace, there would be more deaths.


You once asked rogue of he fired a gun with bump stock, have you? Have you ever fired a gun, even once? Have you been guns at all? You don't really seem to be able to even conceptualize how guns and shooting works. In 2017, "mass shooting" deaths accounted for 1.065% of firearm murders. More people were killed with hands, fists, feet, etc than in a mass shooting. It is not justifiable to deprive rights or liberties of millions based on such a minuscule number.

First of we're not comparing the different ways that people are killed, we're talking about, or comparing number of murders over time with numbers of murders at one time.
We're simply talking about mass shootings period.
And it seems that I have a difference of opinion with many here concerning the interpretation of the law, or I should say how a justice should interpret the law.

So, first off, an AR-15 equipped with a bump stock according to my research can fire between 400-800 rpm which means it can be comparable to a fully automatic machine gun. I would assume that the rpm is dependent on the experience/ability of the shooter, but nonetheless the rpm can be comparable to a machine gun.
As far as the legal mechanism involved which defined a machine gun, the single function of the trigger finger. I could be wrong, but it's the way it read to me and I noticed it's also the way that the ATF defined it i.e. that with the bump stock there is only a single function of the trigger finger, from that point on it is the recoil of the gun that bumps against the finger, not that the shooter is pulling the trigger each time.
So,, with that in mind, I don't agree with Thomas or some of you here that a Judge leaves his common sense at the door and simply interpret the exact wording of the law, I think you use your common sense, interpret the intent of the law, and all things being as above, if the weapons are comparable, then that was the intent of the original law. I agree with Sotomayor. If it walks like a duck........